The Roger Stone Trial

[volinbham]

I've got to weigh on the Barr did not misrepresent Mueller report side.

More accurately, the media and others misrepresented Barr's comments. Barr said from the beginning that he was providing a SUMMARY of the CONCLUSIONS (not the report). He never claimed to be summarizing the report. That was the interpretation people immediately applied. The pushback from the Muell team was they wished he'd had included the SUMMARIES of other parts of the report. Instead, Barr released virtually the whole damn thing when he was not obligated to do so.

His summary of the conclusions was accurate and the summaries of the other parts of the report were unneeded since he released the full thing.

 

[Septic]

Nonsense. Go back just a couple replies to see my link to ABC news reporting exactly what I stated.

The one from the 'official' that spoke anonymously? Ah, thanks - I generally move past those.

Odd, since I know from personal experience how much credence the right loves to put into unnamed, anonymous officials.

Just to be clear, are these back on the table as legit sources now?

 

[hog88]

Johnny has four apples and Sally takes those four apples away. How many apples does Johnny have left?

Hog: "1"

I hope your math skills are not indicative of the Tennessee public school system.

How many attoneys quit their jobs?

 

[Septic]

I've got to weigh on the Barr did not misrepresent Mueller report side.

More accurately, the media and others misrepresented Barr's comments. Barr said from the beginning that he was providing a SUMMARY of the CONCLUSIONS (not the report). He never claimed to be summarizing the report. That was the interpretation people immediately applied. The pushback from the Muell team was they wished he'd had included the SUMMARIES of other parts of the report. Instead, Barr released virtually the whole damn thing when he was not obligated to do so.

His summary of the conclusions was accurate and the summaries of the other parts of the report were unneeded since he released the full thing.

So a summary of some of the conclusions while not providing substance or context for the whole couldn't be construed as misleading?

 

[volinbham]

I think the narrative on Barr/Trump is backwards.

Barr got the job because he had been publicly skeptical about the Russiagate investigation and prosecutions. Hiring him meant there was a good chance he was going to have DOJ take a serious look into Russiagate and that's exactly what he's doing. I doubt it because he loves Trump or fears Trump or Trump is his buddy or he's Trump's puppet. It's because he saw what he considered to be serious abuses (which has been verified) and wants to get to the bottom of it.

So far there have been more people fired and publicly called out via internal audit mechanisms for bad and possibly criminal behavior on the Russiagate investigation side than there have been prosecuted on the alleged Collusion side.

Barr should be trying to get to the bottom of it and for the life of me I can't fathom why everyone wouldn't want that to happen unless it negatively affects them politically.

 

[volinbham]

So a summary of some of the conclusions while not providing substance or context for the whole couldn't be construed as misleading?

what conclusions were omitted?

He said at the time he released it what he was commenting on - the conclusions of the investigation: 1) no evidence of collusion; 2) no recommended charges on obstruction but no exoneration. Those were the conclusions.

He also said I'm going to release the report.

Do you honestly think he was trying to mislead just for short time and then when it comes out he'd say OOOOPPS! forget that part?

 

[volinbham]

Would you have preferred he said nothing for the weeks it took to do the redactions? Would that be better?

 

[volinbham]

For reference here's Barr's summary of conclusions.

What's misleading here?

Document: Attorney General Barr Letter on Mueller Report

 

[Mick]

He has cited sources, multiple times.

Wasn't it an anonymous source? I know you hate anonymous sources.

The DOJ.

The prosecutors briefed the office before filed the sentencing recommendation before they actually did so on Monday evening. The filing discussed was for 3-4 years; they went rogue and were seeking as much as five additional years for witness intimidation. The witness, Credico, states he was not threatened nor ever felt endangered and that he doesn't want Stone imprisoned.

The official insisted that senior leadership of the department were not kept in the loop on the recommendation that federal prosecutors put forward in court Monday evening.

"The department was shocked to see the sentencing recommendation,” the official, who requested anonymity to speak about the department's internal deliberations, said. “This was not what had been briefed to the department and the department thinks the recommendation was extreme, excessive and grossly disproportionate to Stone’s offenses and the department will clarify its position later today at the court.” Entire Roger Stone prosecution team withdraws after DOJ lowers sentencing recommendation

 

[NCFisher]

The one from the 'official' that spoke anonymously? Ah, thanks - I generally move past those.

Odd, since I know from personal experience how much credence the right loves to put into unnamed, anonymous officials.

Just to be clear, are these back on the table as legit sources now?

Geez, guy, you're just being a blatant goof now.

Again, except for a DoJ official speaking anonymously because of an ongoing proceeding, what is it you think you're going to get?

Do you think after DOJ's statement that department officials made the decision before Trump's tweet, Barr or these officials will have a different story in congress? You're dreaming.
When DOJ jumps on the filing just made the prior night, and rescinds the recommendation, do you have another explanation?

Nah, you don't, do you?

 

[NCFisher]

So a summary of some of the conclusions while not providing substance or context for the whole couldn't be construed as misleading?

There were two volumes, two conclusions.
Barr spoke to both of them.

 

[RockyTop85]

No, but you are FOS. Now you are referencing an "article". What happened to the letter, which is what we were discussing and in which you said Credico made it plain on "who"? But I guess not, you couldn't find it, so you had to look elsewhere. Good for you but bad for you. Talking out of your "hat".

I quoted only the letter in which the (Victim) Credico said he didn't feel threatened and that it was just "Stone being Stone". You, in response, have labeled me a liar, a shill, tribal, politician and worst of all, lawyer, and by quoting the (Victim) Credico, I was minimizing Stone's behavior. That's quite a reaction for quoting (Victim) Credico in a letter to the sentencing judge, now isn't it, counselor?

What? I never said or even implied that the full context was contained within the four corners of the letter. Feel free to go back and look at what I said: if you were looking for the letter, then you would have seen references to the context added by his other statements.

In fairness to you, I was talking about his trial testimony since the interview he gave made the point that you have to be a partisan shill to take the letter out of context much more succinctly.

That you probably relied on some partisan blog or news outlet that didn’t give full context, that is not my fault, not very surprising, and not a point in your favor.

 

[NCFisher]

Wasn't it an anonymous source? I know you hate anonymous sources.

Then you were against impeachment?

 

[37L1]

What? I never said or even implied that the full context was contained within the four corners of the letter. Feel free to go back and look at what I said: if you were looking for the letter, then you would have seen references to the context added by his other statements.

In fairness to you, I was talking about his trial testimony since the interview he gave made the point that you have to be a partisan shill to take the letter out of context much more succinctly.

That you probably relied on some partisan blog or news outlet that didn’t give full context, that is not my fault, not very surprising, and not a point in your favor.

Go ahead and parse away, after all that's all you can do.

Credico already answered this question and if you’re looking up his letter you’ve seen it.

So out of the context of the discussion at the time, what is anyone reading it supposed to glean as to what you meant? Sounds to me that you are saying that it is contained within his letter (to the judge). If you didn't mean to imply it, you should have been more accurate with your retorts. Maybe you should have said then that you were talking about his trial testimony at the time, maybe? I was pretty clear and have been from the jump, that I was quoting from and talking about the letter and nothing else. And you've had plenty of posts to have been able to make this "clarification" earlier but you didn't until now. "That is not surprising and not a point in your favor."

In fairness to you, since it is not contained in his letter, as you "implied", you are now implying that one would have had to have seen all of Credico's statements if one were looking for the letter. From my link, this was the first one I found that contained the letter in it's entirety, FWIW. You are assuming facts that are not in evidence, and conveniently, trying to make a federal case out of it.

 

[NCFisher]

Of course they do, generally it's not after the fact and definitely not after their superiors boss tweets disdain about its unfairness. The conflict of interest would be apparent to a toddler.

Drain the swamp though.

What's your source that they only discussed "sentencing after the fact"? Or that the decision was made after and in response to Trump's tweet? Gee, not even an anonymous source.

This is part of Russiaaaaah!-gate; the chance DOJ and Team 4 didn't discuss sentencing is zero. You have an DOJ official known to a reporter and her editor giving you the only plausible explanation, but you reach for the bias ring. Mmm...not a good look.

Say, how about that actual conflict of interest that's been making the rounds?

 

[RockyTop85]

I've got to weigh on the Barr did not misrepresent Mueller report side.

More accurately, the media and others misrepresented Barr's comments. Barr said from the beginning that he was providing a SUMMARY of the CONCLUSIONS (not the report). He never claimed to be summarizing the report. That was the interpretation people immediately applied. The pushback from the Muell team was they wished he'd had included the SUMMARIES of other parts of the report. Instead, Barr released virtually the whole damn thing when he was not obligated to do so.

His summary of the conclusions was accurate and the summaries of the other parts of the report were unneeded since he released the full thing.

Trump and his allies used his letter to misrepresent the contents of the report in a way that was so predictable that it’s difficult to believe it wasn’t intentional.

It was a crafty political move that effectively killed the Mueller report as a tool for impeachment. If he was a campaign manager and maybe a chief of staff? That’s not supposed to be the roll of the AG.

The contents of the report were not difficult to understand and could have been conveyed in the appropriate context within a 4 page document.

You still see people on this board mischaracterizing the contents of the report based on what Barr said in his letter, or at least how the letter was portrayed.

I understand there are mitigating circumstances, like Mueller’s own inability to articulate some vague beyond-the-report basis for their nonconclusion or the hysteria about whether or not the report would be made publicly available.

However there are also circumstance that cut the other way, like DOJ’s refusal to allow congress access to the evidence, several instances where they’ve appeared to make bad faith legal arguments in a way that was favorable to Trump, have failed to comply with court orders, and Barr’s own lectures and testimony about the absurdly expansive executive power that he finds appropriate, including instances where he testified about the president’s power vis-a-vis the DOJ, which infer that if Trump did order him to get involved in a case, he would.

IMO, Barr has earned the mistrust he gets as AG.

 

[BigOrangeD]

What's your source that they only discussed "sentencing after the fact"? Or that the decision was made after and in response to Trump's tweet? Gee, not even an anonymous source.

This is part of Russiaaaaah!-gate; the chance DOJ and Team 4 didn't discuss sentencing is zero. You have an DOJ official known to a reporter and her editor giving you the only plausible explanation, but you reach for the bias ring. Mmm...not a good look.

Say, how about that actual conflict of interest that's been making the rounds?

Septic getting owned again. Sep, you should know by now not to mess with this guy.

 

[volinbham]

Trump and his allies used his letter to misrepresent the contents of the report in a way that was so predictable that it’s difficult to believe it wasn’t intentional.

It was a crafty political move that effectively killed the Mueller report as a tool for impeachment. If he was a campaign manager and maybe a chief of staff? That’s not supposed to be the roll of the AG.

The contents of the report were not difficult to understand and could have been conveyed in the appropriate context within a 4 page document.

You still see people on this board mischaracterizing the contents of the report based on what Barr said in his letter, or at least how the letter was portrayed.

I understand there are mitigating circumstances, like Mueller’s own inability to articulate some vague beyond-the-report basis for their nonconclusion or the hysteria about whether or not the report would be made publicly available.

However there are also circumstance that cut the other way, like DOJ’s refusal to allow congress access to the evidence, several instances where they’ve appeared to make bad faith legal arguments in a way that was favorable to Trump, have failed to comply with court orders, and Barr’s own lectures and testimony about the absurdly expansive executive power that he finds appropriate, including instances where he testified about the president’s power vis-a-vis the DOJ, which infer that if Trump did order him to get involved in a case, he would.

IMO, Barr has earned the mistrust he gets as AG.

What contents were omitted in the 4 page report that materially changed the report?

How could the report have been used for impeachment without Barr's memo or IOW; what could Barr have "accurately" put in the Summary that would have changed an impeachment case?

Legal arguments (bad faith in your opinion) are distinct from the question of whether or not the memo was misleading. I'd still like someone to point out what was misleading about it. Whether Trump used it in a misleading way doesn't make the memo misleading. Anti-Trumpers used it in misleading ways as well. Hell, Anti-Trumpers were misleading in what the memo was even about and that Barr was NEVER GOING TO RELEASE THE REPORT! AAAAAAAAHHHH!

My argument is the memo was not misleading. Whether Barr has done other things to make him untrustworthy is another issue altogether.

 

[Septic]

What's your source that they only discussed "sentencing after the fact"? Or that the decision was made after and in response to Trump's tweet? Gee, not even an anonymous source.

This is part of Russiaaaaah!-gate; the chance DOJ and Team 4 didn't discuss sentencing is zero. You have an DOJ official known to a reporter and her editor giving you the only plausible explanation, but you reach for the bias ring. Mmm...not a good look.

Say, how about that actual conflict of interest that's been making the rounds?

You planted your flag on the words of a anonymous source, own it and stop embarrassing yourself. The roads around this forum are paved with the broken dreams of those that tried to cite an "anonymous official" as proof.

I don't need to cite anything - you made the claim. Your m.o. of bad arguments and deflection, followed by appeals to emotion is starting to wear thin.

Retreat, lick your wounds and regroup. Today was not your day.

 

[Septic]

what conclusions were omitted?

He said at the time he released it what he was commenting on - the conclusions of the investigation: 1) no evidence of collusion; 2) no recommended charges on obstruction but no exoneration. Those were the conclusions.

He also said I'm going to release the report.

Do you honestly think he was trying to mislead just for short time and then when it comes out he'd say OOOOPPS! forget that part?[/QUOTE]

yes.

The conclusions barr referenced lacked specific context. Which is why he felt the need to state, “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusion.” Mueller continued: “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

Whether purposeful or accidental, Mueller believed that Barr's 4 page summary of a 400 page document wasn't adequate.


Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman died and OJ is innocent.

Do you feel like that sentence properly "captures the context, nature and substance" of OJ's interaction with Nicole and Ron that night?

 

[volinbham]

yes.

The conclusions barr referenced lacked specific context. Which is why he felt the need to state, “The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office’s work and conclusion.” Mueller continued: “There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”


Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman are dead and OJ was acquitted.

Do you feel like that sentence properly "captures the context, nature and substance" of OJ's interaction with Nicole and Ron that night?

I posted the memo - it is 4 pages. Mueller also said it was accurate.

Take a look at it and tell me what "context" is missing specifically.

 

[Septic]

Septic getting owned again. Sep, you should know by now not to mess with this guy.

You've conflated his bloviating for substance, I don't think anyone would be surprised you'd find that impressive.

 

[volinbham]

Whether purposeful or accidental, Mueller believed that Barr's 4 page summary of a 400 page document wasn't adequate.

It was not a summary of a 400 page document; it was a summary of the conclusions of the document. Barr explicitly said so AND said he'd be releasing the full document.

Mueller acknowledged as much.

 

[Septic]

I posted the memo - it is 4 pages. Mueller also said it was accurate.

Take a look at it and tell me what "context" is missing specifically.

That's just it, it doesn't matter what any of us subjectively think was missing. The author of the document believed the conclusions were improper without context. His words, not mine.

 

[Orangeburst]

That's just it, it doesn't matter what any of us subjectively think was missing. The author of the document believed the conclusions were improper without context. His words, not mine.

Author of the document my ass.